Equanimity: No drama-inducing crossposting of content found in other subreddits, or vice versa. Likewise, posts found to direct odious influxes here may be removed.

Grace: No tactless posts generalising gender or gendered groups. We are a welcoming community. Rights of all genders are supported here and broad generalizations [including about feminism or the men's rights movement] will not be tolerated.

Relevance: Please submit content that is relevant to our experiences as men, for men, or about men. Clear [META] posts with the mods first.

Yeah. I remember back when the Terri Shaivo case was going on, and Sen. Bill Frist used his background as a cardiologist to diagnose her as non-vegetative through video footage. He was wrong. I think Dr. Mariano should have reserved her judgement until she had seen his medical records.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to refer to it as self-publicity. She was most likely approached by CNN instead of the other way around and most doctors would probably have the same opinion that he's at greater risk for a heart attack.

Then we can ask whether it's appropriate for any doctor to discuss his weight but if we say 'no' then we have to also assume it's inappropriate for anyone to bring it up. He talks about his weight and as a public figure, if you're going to talk about something, then other people will as well.

I'm not sure it's appropriate to refer to it as self-publicity. She was most likely approached by CNN instead of the other way around and most doctors would probably have the same opinion that he's at greater risk for a heart attack.

Most doctors would acknowledge that the way to check if someone is at an elevated risk for a heart attack is with actual scientific tests and a medical examination, not via eyeballing the waistline of someone they've never met in person.

Are you a doctor? Have you examined him? While obesity is definitely correlated with a number of diseases and conditions, some of them life-threatening, the correlation is not one-to-one. If this doctor was actually concerned about Christie's health she could have offered to examine him and help treat him if he had any health problems rather than performing a diagnosis from an armchair based on two halfway-relevant statistics.

Look, I'm sure Christie has a doctor, he's the governor, there's got to be someone watching his health. That doctor knows whether he's healthy or not and is actually responsible for protecting that. We are bystanders who don't know shit and should refrain from speculating. That's between him and his doctor and nobody else.

You don't always need tests to know something is a problem. Christie is very large and there is no way it isn't going to have a significant effect on his health.

Doctors would only do tests to determine the severity of his condition. No doctor would need to do a test just to determine that his size poses an obvious health risk; this much is obvious just by looking at him. It's really no different from looking at a gaping wound and understanding there is an infection risk. You don't need "scientific tests" to know that.

Doctors diagnose via eyeballing a lot. Probably way more than they do by actual tests, which just aren't always needed.

"Turning into jabba the hut at 40 is a reasonable indication that you don't have your shit together. If you're a land whale, who can't say no to pudding, how can you be trusted to make the difficult choices that affect me?"

The issue at hand is that we equate obesity with lack of control, when there are a myriad of issues at hand.

Even if that is true, the man has a track record of handling difficult choices with his action during Hurricane Sandy. When the leadership of Atlantic City chose not to evacuate, he made a tough call to say that he was not going to send any rescue forces to save them.

Don't really like the guy, however I find it ridiculous that people are attempting to get him to lose weight. I thought we lived in America where we are free to eat whatever we want.

Frankly, it is disturbing that the media is speculating on his health. Although he is overweight he may just be healthier than our commander in chief who still smokes. This isn't for us to judge, it is between Christie and his doctor. America's infatuation with voyeurism needs to come to an end. It is detrimental to our culture, and our children do not need to bare witness to this crap.

He's governor of my state and might run for president. He started the week by making fun of his weight by eating a jelly donut on Letterman.

As a public official whose health matters and may affect his ability to serve, his weight is a fair topic of conversation. (Imagine him under the stress of the White House.) As a celebrity on national television who made fun of weight, he signaled it was an okay topic to discuss.

You don't eat a donut on late night TV as a joke and then not expect people to talk about your weight.

You think he's too fat to be a good president? Fine, don't vote for him. You don't? Then it's not an issue. The discussion is not "Is obesity an issue that can be attached to the carrying out of anyone's duties ever?" (It can be, by the way. What if a bus driver had a heart attack? Better not have fat bus drivers.) It is whether or not it is the place of John Q. Public and Doctor Has-Jack-All-About-Christie's-Medical-Info to offer their advice as to how the governor should live his life as far as nutrition goes. Him eating a jelly doughnut was, if anything, a humorous indictment of how ridiculously voyeuristic and self-important America's media focus has become that we think we have the wherewithal and place to tell others how to live without even the slightest knowledge of them outside what we see on our television screens.

I disagree. The health of a major public official is open for debate. McCain and Lautenberg face questions about their ages and ability to carry out their duties. Cheney faced questions about his heart health. (How many jokes were made about him already being dead but still going strong?)

Christie's weight is a valid topic for discussion as it relates to his ability to carry out the duties of the office he holds and is seeking.

You can't just say his weight is off limits for political discussion unless you also think the entire question of health status is off limits for discussion.

You are entitled by right to consider and discuss his health as part of your consideration in deciding whether or not to vote for him, along with any and all other aspects of him you so choose, that is at your discretion.

However, a doctor who has no access to his medical records or the man himself making a diagnosis of him should also be viewed as the media circus it is, but that's besides the point.

The point is, it is not the place of the public to say to this man "You are running for office, you should live your life this way I tell you to." That is, while legal, boorish, rude, and utterly inappropriate. If you after discussion and consideration decide his weight is an issue, by all means, don't vote for him. But you do not have the power or qualitative authority to instruct him on how to live his life, which is exactly what a number of people are trying to do.

EDIT: Also, I just wanted to say, while I know we're definitely arguing with a bit of an edge in our tones here, I do appreciate your respectfulness and civility, you are adding to the quality of discussion on reddit for doing so, and I commend you as a fellow redditor for it.

Nope, but it does mean more likely to die than someone under 50. As do other conditions which the candidate may/may not have. There's plenty of fat people in the world who manage to do their job without popping their cloggs in the first month, he's no exception.

Yeah, a doctor that will publicly renounce someone because of their weight, they sound like a pretty skilled professional. Putting aside the fact that this completely disregards doctor patient confidentiality and the Hippocratic oath, this is clearly a play on the emotions of people that are of a certain mindset across this country, that attractiveness and superb physical health is the paramount issue, and absolute conformity is a necessity. I am not a "thin privelage" tumblr douche, but really, who gives a shit how someone decides to live their life. I would much rather listen to an intelligent fat person then a sexy annoying gossiper.

Putting aside the fact that this completely disregards doctor patient confidentiality and the Hippocratic oath

I disagree. The doctor in question does not have any confidential information; that's exactly the problem, according to Christie. He says he's healthy (for a fat person?), which means that he may have excellent cholesterol, bloodpressure, etc. All those measurements that actually are confidential? The doctor in question doesn't have access to any of those things.

As to the Hippocratic Oath... What harm is being done by telling someone that they should take better care of themself?

Well the harm is publically blasting someone for a health issue for political reasons. I think christie got into that a little bit when he was talking about how his kid asked him if he was gonna die. I think its unprofessional for a doctor to behave in this fashion, when she's obviously trying to make an example out of him for America, and I would bet its not much different from fox news blasting obama for smoking. I think its also silly to nit pick about this stuff for the sake of gossip and political reasons.

It's only political harm that is done thus, a form of harm that doctors don't, or at least shouldn't, give a flying fish about.

I would bet its not much different from fox news blasting obama for smoking.

If you change that to a doctor on fox news blasting obama for smoking, I'll grant you that, and say that it's for public health. Such a declaration, while still unprofessional without an actual diagnosis, is for the advancement of public health, and therefore actually in line with the Hippocratic Oath.

I guess that depends on what you define as the advancement of public health. Telling some guy that he's overweight over twitter doesn't really advance public health in any regard. I think if she was gonna go after someone, she should go after the people that consider their weight a disability, the rascal riders, or maybe wal mart for providing rascals without limitations on a fat person that just doesn't want to walk. In terms of people that have a statistical affect on public health and obesity rates, chris christie is far from those in imminent danger of heart disease. The truth is (and the media doesn't want to talk about this) is that it is influential rich people that are not the problem "for setting a bad example", but rather the lower and lower middle class who have hugely inflated obesity rates due to the poor quality of food they can afford. But no, because the media also enjoys whole foods and shopping at places that they won't see a large group of fat Hispanics and blacks. What the media doesn't want to tell you is that were splitting the demographics of the U.S. in two until we have essentially two separate species, while maintaining the capitalist illusion that "you can make it to the top, and be rich a beautiful". You have the increasingly rich rich, with their healthy foods, bountiful health insurance, and personal trainer, and the increasingly poor poor, who as labor jobs decrease, increasingly sit around and get no exercise, and can only afford the mass produced food, full of preservatives and high fructose corn syrup, and shame for being obese.

Fat shaming/lack of diagnosis. How does this doctor know anything about a patient that they haven't examined? Do they also go around accusing skinny people of anorexia? Well muscled people of abusing steroids?

The cynical part of me questions whether the entire thing isn't a political maneuver. Christie was all but begged to run for the presidency last year (which he tearfully turned down, out of duty to his State and current office), and has repeatedly shown himself to care more about his constituents than about politics. This means he's very likely one of the better candidates in Red for the presidency in 2016. But now, thanks to the suggestion that he'd die in office, people might be afraid to vote for him, for fear of him not being able to serve out his term.

And the entire thing bothers me; people assume that I'm in shape simply because I'm skinny. They're wrong; my lung capacity is not up to par (IMO), and I've got major joint problems because my metabolism eats away at my cartilage when it runs out of fat. Is that healthy? But you can't tell that just by looking at my sixpack...

For her to do this so publicly is textbook fat-shaming, and the only reason anyone would consider it acceptable is the way our society dehumanizes fat people. If she were genuinely concerned for his well-being, she would have offered to examine him and used actual medical and scientific tests to evaluate his health.

As he says, it's completely possible to be fat and healthy. I found his very brusque expression of his disapproval in her refreshing.

Shame is evil. There is literally nothing good that comes of shaming. So what does that have to do with the moral permissibility of shaming? Nothing. Shaming is immoral completely independent of anything else.

...that is the difference between "guilty" and "ashamed;" the former is a question of "I did bad" while the latter is "I am bad." Shame is destructive, and leads to a "what the hell" effect whereby the shamed person no longer sees a point in attempting to better themselves, because they're not worth it, a hopeless case.

I read it. Thanks for the downvote due to differing of opinion. I believe it is possible to tell someone what they have done is bad while still accepting them with open arms because you care about them. I say this after a few years experience with a restorative justice program where we mediated between criminal offenders and their victims post-charge, pre-sentence.

I was simply offering a perspective. You are entitled to disagree, but you can dismount your high horse.

You're right. I should have said that nothing good comes of shaming that is not significantly better accomplished with different techniques, techniques that do not have the poisonous side effects that shaming relies upon.

I mean, I despise guilt, but even guilt (what you did is bad) is better than shame (you are bad).

Generally, the excuse given for shaming fat people or smokers is that their behavior is unhealthy. The problem is that it shouldn't actually be acceptable to shame someone for being unhealthy. If we were concerned for someone's health, we would offer to help them get healthier, not publicly shame them for their condition. As Christie stated, if she were actually concerned for his health, she, as a doctor, could have offered to examine him.

If all you care about is "resources" and "society's bottom line" then you should acknowledge that most skinny people eventually need a lot of "resources" for their care when they get older. Should we similarly be upset that elderly people with failing health are a drain on society's "resources" or are harming "society's bottom line"?

How far do we go with this? There's other behaviors people engage in which are harmful that we don't shame. What about people who are into extreme sports? What about firefighters? If a guy goes parachuting and his chute fails and he ends up paralyzed should our reaction be "fuck you, you selfish asshole, now we have to care for your crippled ass!"

Because of these types of inconsistencies, whenever I hear people arguing that we should continue to shame fat people "for their own good" or "because they're costing society money" I really feel like the real reason you feel that way is just pure bigotry. You don't like how they look and want to be able to make fun of them, pure and simple. If you're a bigot, just be honest about it. Otherwise you can come across like a guy who's defending his hatred of gay people because of money spent on AIDS research or something, like there's a defensible reason for being a bigot.

You apparently missed my point. Through their chosen behavior they selfishly put themselves in a position that will require significantly more resources than if they had not allowed themselves to become morbidly obese. This is obviously undesirable. Your other points do not refute this.

If this is an indefensible position then how can one condemn a wife beater when the wife chooses to stay with the abuser?

Actually obese people cost less in the long term in healthcare costs, frequently because they die younger. They do "cost" more in terms of food calories, but I think we can acknowledge that in any first-world nation that's insignificant and they bear those costs themselves anyways.

So if that's really the only reason for adhering to your bias against fat people and wanting to cling to your desire to shame them, then I guess you'll have to give that up, right? Either that or just drop the charade and say the real reason is you want to make fun of them cause you don't like what they look like.

Just because the opinion is universally unpopular doesn't make it untrue. Enjoy suffocating under the weight of your blubber, the failure of your overtaxed heart, or a tiny nugget of fat lodging in your coronary artery.

Allowing yourself to be fat is one thing, accepting it as appropriate is quite another.

The sad thing is the only bully that counts is yourself. Rather than berating oneself as a fatty there are options - oatmeal and swimming for example.

Would you expect to see a post on /r/funny like this with something like "look at this idiot" with everyone laughing, and then if anyone said "that's not nice" having people say "hey, I'm laughing at him for his own good, it's his fault that he's like this and he needs to know that he should change."? I wouldn't, but we see posts like that all the time over there of just like some fat person on the subway or something.

Asking "is it shameful" to be an addict is quite different than asking if we should shame them for being an addict. Do you feel like if you see a junkie passed out on the street that it will be helpful to take pictures to ridicule them? Would it be "helpful" to start making fun of him right then and there? People do that all the time with fat people, mooing at them, yelling "hey fatty" or whatever. Do you see people doing that with addicts and drunks that are total strangers to them? Do you even hear about that happening?

Asking "is it shameful" to be an addict is quite different than asking if we should shame them for being an addict. Do you feel like if you see a junkie passed out on the street that it will be helpful to take pictures to ridicule them? Would it be "helpful" to start making fun of him right then and there? People do that all the time with fat people, mooing at them, yelling "hey fatty" or whatever. Do you see people doing that with addicts and drunks that are total strangers to them? Do you even hear about that happening?

This is an excellent point, thanks for articulating it so well. I feel like I've felt this way all along about fat-shaming but didn't know how to say it.

I would say that the doc is indeed unprofessional, trying to diagnose someone he's never even met, though I'm not a doctor and I would wonder how much information a doctor would need to make that diagnosis. I can also understand why someone who actually lives in NJ would be worried about the sitting Governor having a heart attack.

I think he's a good and decent person. I disgaree with him on a variety of important issues, and he is a politician, so I think it's fair game to take him task on that.

I think there are a lot of people who dislike his views and so want to criticize him with whatever they can find. There are also people who dislike him for working with the President on Hurricane Sandy. Some even credit Obama's re-election to Christie.

I don't think it's fair to criticize him for his weight at present. If he were older and running for President, I think it would be a legitimate concern relating to the likelihood of him having adverse health complications due to the stress of the job.

I more worried how the dialog is being placed by the media right now. Christie has some sound practices as a governor and he relies on logic on many things he does, that's something to fear in the political circle.

Christie's health is second to how I worry how they may use it against him if he runs for President or whatever. Just speculation, of course.